Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 273 posts

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#121

Post by mulmen »

kevinchen wrote: post #92
nradov wrote: post #16

This is great progress and congratulations to Google. But Google and every other tech company is effectively still running on non-renewable energy by virtue of importing most of their hardware from places where manufacturing is done mostly with fossil fuels. All of us are outsourcing our pollution and CO2 production.

One step at a time. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Data centers are an easier target because you have more flexibility. And to provide a counterexample, Apple recently pressured Foxconn to power certain parts of iPhone manufacturing with renewables by 2018. We'll see if the two companies deliver on that goal. https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/10/22Apple-Launches-Ne...

For a company that contracts out their hardware working with their vendors is more admirable to me than having their datacenters run on clean energy. Hopefully Apple and Foxconn can deliver on this.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#122

Post by downandout »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120
downandout wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't own these wind farms etc. They aren't investing in anything, and their shareholders aren't getting anything in return. They are paying a premium and hoping that the companies use the Google-provided profits/financing flexibility to advance the technology to the point where it will hopefully one day become economically viable. That day of course is not today, which is why I take issue with some of the s…

> Google doesn't own these wind farms etc. Of course not. That'd be a pain in the ass. That's why they sign PPAs (power purchase agreements) that entitle them to the power from those generators (usually on 20-25 year contract terms). Think reserved instances at AWS. You're paying to commit to a resource usage. What does AWS do with that money? Buy hardware and provide the service to you. You simply make a payment. >…

I disagree with you, as do the facts.

Show me what they can put on a balance sheet in the end.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#123

Post by mda »

CPLX wrote: post #118
evanws wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, 7% of Apple's global power is still dirty and they have not made any public commitment to bring that down any further. Google is a much much larger energy consumer, has been carbon neutral since 2007, and is going to use 100% renewables globally within the next year. Also, Google made its energy company play back in 2010. Apple made theirs in 2016.

> Google is a much much larger energy consumer That seems implausible. The electrical requirements of Aluminum production are extreme. Obviously there's a lot of issues about where one draws the line between the company and its subcontractors and so on, but it seems hard to believe Apple's global energy footprint is not higher than Google's

I didn't know Apple produced its own aluminum.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#124

Post by astrodust »

kevinchen wrote: post #88
downandout wrote: post #62

>"It’s good for the economy, good for business and good for our shareholders ". Let's be honest...it is not good for their shareholders. They are buying power at a significant premium and costing their shareholders money. It is a direct hit to the bottom line. This might be good for the environment - at the very least they are helping renewable energy companies get bank financing through purchase guarantees, which wi…

Who will use Google's products and services when highly populated coastal areas are underwater?

Mermaids.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#125

Post by [deleted] »

tylercubell wrote: post #65

> “In my mind it’s a P.R. gimmick,” said Chris Warren, vice president of communications at the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank in Washington supported largely by donations from individuals and companies in the fossil fuel industry. “If they think they can actually support themselves with wind and solar panels, they should connect them directly to their data centers.” I love how the author throws in a disc…

[deleted]

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#126

Post by blazespin »

tylercubell wrote: post #65

> “In my mind it’s a P.R. gimmick,” said Chris Warren, vice president of communications at the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank in Washington supported largely by donations from individuals and companies in the fossil fuel industry. “If they think they can actually support themselves with wind and solar panels, they should connect them directly to their data centers.” I love how the author throws in a disc…

Yeah, or maybe Big Oil is just pretty evil.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#127

Post by aperetto »

tylercubell wrote: post #65

> “In my mind it’s a P.R. gimmick,” said Chris Warren, vice president of communications at the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank in Washington supported largely by donations from individuals and companies in the fossil fuel industry. “If they think they can actually support themselves with wind and solar panels, they should connect them directly to their data centers.” I love how the author throws in a disc…

It's such a ridiculous statement, too. With his logic this guy would have to buy the cow that makes the milk he drinks in his coffee...

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#128

Post by wildmusings »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #98
wildmusings wrote: post #32

The title is misleading. They will not run entirely on renewable energy. Instead, they are buying at least as much renewable energy as they are consuming in total. So Google might pay for 1 megawatt of solar power going into the grid, but actually pull 1 megawatt of fossil fuel power. This is more than a nitpicking point. The reason why renewable energy isn't a totally viable energy source is because of problems with…

They also buy in the general location of their datacenters. It doesn't always match up exactly, but they are aiming for slightly better than just a purely numerical correspondence.

Good point. And I don't mean to suggest that their actions aren't admirable, they are! I'm just a little frustrated at the misinformation, and resulting misconceptions, floating around concerning renewable energy. These misconceptions have political and economic consequences.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#129

Post by IanCal »

kevinchen wrote: post #92
nradov wrote: post #16

This is great progress and congratulations to Google. But Google and every other tech company is effectively still running on non-renewable energy by virtue of importing most of their hardware from places where manufacturing is done mostly with fossil fuels. All of us are outsourcing our pollution and CO2 production.

One step at a time. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Data centers are an easier target because you have more flexibility. And to provide a counterexample, Apple recently pressured Foxconn to power certain parts of iPhone manufacturing with renewables by 2018. We'll see if the two companies deliver on that goal. https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/10/22Apple-Launches-Ne...

> One step at a time. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

And on the flip-side, don't let good stop you from reaching perfect. This is a good step and one that should be applauded, but at the same time recognising that there is still work to be done is valuable.

Re: Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy in 2017

#130

Post by edblarney »

papercrane wrote: post #83
edblarney wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can predict the supply of wind, as an average over a long enough period of time, much more easily than you can predict the supply of oil." Over the long haul, yes, but in real-time - no. And electricity prices to fluctuate a lot over days, weeks etc.. But indicating that 'price stability' is a point for green is not really fair, when it's almost always going to be considerably more expensive. Knowing that someth…

> Over the long haul, yes, but in real-time - no. And electricity prices to fluctuate a lot over days, weeks etc.. You'd deal with this the same way you deal with it in every other commodity market, futures contracts.

Yes, of course, but a futures contract definitely adds cost, is my point.

Google is in effect doing the same thing as 'buying a future' and it's unreasonable for him to make the argument that this is 'inherently a better thing about green'.

I could buy a futures contract for Oil today and would it be fair for me to say 'Oil is has more stability in prices'?

Post reply on HN